Globalisation
seems to be an attempt to override the traditional wisdom that the
most important determinants of property value are location, location,
and location. With profligate use of fossil fuels, goods and people
can be moved anywhere. Living a long time in one place is a privilege
granted to far too few of us these days. When one's work is also
largely 'at home,' the deeper relationship to place is intensified.
That this is nowadays such an uncommon boon is a mark of our times -
mobility seems more highly prized than stability. I am 28 years in
place.

The
front door overlooks a tidal valley with a settlement of six thousand
folk a few miles upriver and a disused ford and fishing port (now
yachts & dinghies) a mile downstream (both thankfully on the
other side of the river!) Half a mile downhill (but upriver) is
Palnackie, which owes its existence to good anchorage and functioned
as the principal port for the catchment. From the hills out back, the
landscape is coastal peninsula and bay grading through arable,
pasturage, and forested hills which rise steeply above treeline to
1250 feet.

It would be difficult not to become deeply attached
to such a place. Sadly, many of our young are unable to remain. The
dominant economic assumptions and the imperative of mobility draw
them off and we maintain our low but stable population largely by
importing silvertips who can afford to live here without paid
work.

The Stewartry of Kirkcudbright is over one-third forest
(if the term is used loosely enough to include conifer plantations)
and over the years, I have developed a deep interest in the trees
which are the nearest and most numerous of my neighbours above the
scale of birds and mice. For so long-lived a clan, however, the tree
folk have few really old members hereabouts. Yet, timber harvesting
is expected to double in the next fifteen years, the optimum lifespan
of a Sitka Spruce being reckoned at forty five years.

There
is considerable discussion and debate on the strategies appropriate
for forested land, whether more land should be forested, and
appropriate objectives for such afforestation. From the trees which
currently cover one sixth of Scotland, only one Scot in five hundred
is employed. Best estimates are that fewer than one in fifty jobs
locally is provided by the trees who occupy one third of the land.
There would seem a strong argument that any public money in the
sector should be targeted towards developing forests with more direct
benefits to people, particularly those who live (or wish to live) in
close proximity to forests.

Thus, at the heart of the Strategy there must be a strategic direction: -
to ensure that forestry in Scotland makes a positive contribution to
the environment. ...This must recognise the need to ensure that
Scotland's trees, woods and forests are located and managed for long
term sustainability and biodiversity in order to make the maximum
contribution to the environment consistent with agreed economic
objectives." (1)

But it is apparent that the Forestry Commission, who manage the public
estate, and their private sector colleagues are constrained by such
"agreed economic objectives" which require maximum
mechanisation and upgrading public roads to carry the heaviest
lorries and machinery. "If vehicles are overloaded this process
[road damage and deterioration] is accelerated. Studies over many
years have shown that the damage caused is proportional to the
fourth power of the weight. [emphasis added]" (2) Thus,
putting twenty tonne load limits on rural roads would remove almost
94% of the damage . It would also involve twice as many jobs for
lorry drivers and increase the cost of timber haulage, as opposed to
externalising the social and economic cost of roads onto local
authorities (communities). This is utterly rejected by the industry
as harmful to competitiveness.

Rather
than presenting quick answers, as technocratic culture tends to do,
we need to reflect on whether or not we are asking the right
questions...[or whether] ...people ‘participate’ in a project
without having to decide on the critical issues related to that
project.
-- Pablo Leal (3)

It
would seem that everything is up for discussion in consultation with
the notable exception of "agreed economic objectives" which
are obviously agreed elsewhere. That the perceived need to become
competitive in the global market militates the minimisation of
employment and maximisation of fossil-powered mechanisation with
attendant emissions only emphasises the folly of continuing to build
a global culture based on moving things and people around by burning
carbon. Such thinking is not restricted to forestry or agriculture,
but is visible everywhere in our heavy addiction to mobility.
Transport is the sole sector expected to increase emissions of
greenhouse gasses in the coming decade(s). This seems so accepted
that it passes without notice in government papers. (4,5)

In
short, in consultations concerned with rural development, land
reform, land-use, including forestry, and probably many another, a
common thread emerges, embodying the persistent fallacy that the
economy contains the ecology. Sustainable development, the mantra
repeatedly invoked, must in every case be subservient to "agreed
economic objectives." Clearly the right questions are not yet
being asked of the right folk.